Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) saves a civil court's inherent power "to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court." It fills gaps in the Code. It cannot override the Code or replace a remedy the Code already gives. In My Palace Mutually Aided Co-Operative Society v. B. Mahesh (2022), the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had recalled a final decree under Section 151 because an appeal was available.
Why this matters
Many applications in Indian civil courts are headed "under Section 151 CPC", often as an add-on to a specific provision. It looks like a master key. It is not. Knowing what the section does, and where courts refuse to apply it, saves you from filing an application that is dismissed at the first hearing or, worse, succeeds in the High Court and is then set aside by the Supreme Court, as happened in My Palace.
What Section 151 actually says
Section 151 — Saving of inherent powers of Court: Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
Notice the verb: it saves a power. It does not grant one. The Supreme Court, in a summary it quoted in Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (23 February 2016, 2016 INSC 206) from an earlier case, put the principles this way:
- Section 151 "is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts." It recognises the discretionary power inherent in every court to do what is right and undo what is wrong.
- Because the Code is not exhaustive, if it "does not expressly or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the inherent power can be used" where the ends of justice warrant it.
- "A court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers." Where the Code provides a remedy or procedure, "the court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151."
- The power must be used "with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted," and to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Where the Supreme Court has refused it: *My Palace* (2022)
In My Palace Mutually Aided Co-Operative Society v. B. Mahesh (Civil Appeal No. 5784 of 2022, 23 August 2022, 2022 INSC 854), a final decree had been passed in a property matter in 2013. Years later, outsiders filed an application, numbered I.A. No. 5/2020, asking the Telangana High Court to recall it. The High Court recalled the decree using Section 151, saying it had been obtained by suppressing information.
The Supreme Court (N.V. Ramana CJI, Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli JJ.) set that order aside. Its reasoning:
- Section 151 "can only be applicable if there is no alternate remedy available in accordance with the existing provisions of law."
- It "cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code," and "cannot be invoked as an alternative to filing fresh suits, appeals, revisions, or reviews."
- The outsiders had a route: an appeal from the original decree under Section 96 CPC, which a person affected by a decree but not a party can file with the leave of the court.
- The Court said it was not doubting "that fraud nullifies all proceedings, or that the Court has power to recall an order which was passed due to a fraud played on the Court." The point was that Section 151 had to be used with its restrictions, and alternative remedies pointed to an appeal, not a recall.
The Court also quoted earlier rulings in the same vein: that inherent power "is not to be exercised in a manner which will be contrary to or different from the procedure expressly provided in the Code," and that it can be used where no remedy is provided, including to recall an order obtained by fraud on the court, while fraud on a party may have to be pursued by a separate suit.
Where it is used properly: reopening evidence
Ram Rati v. Mange Ram shows the other side. The question was whether a witness who had already been cross-examined could be recalled "for further elaboration on the left out points." The trial court and High Court allowed it under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151. The Supreme Court (Kurian Joseph J.) set that aside as "wholly impermissible in law," and in doing so explained both limits:
- Order 18 Rule 17 lets the court recall a witness to clarify doubts. It cannot be used "to fill up omission in the evidence already led," or to fill a lacuna.
- Section 151 can, however, be used in appropriate cases to reopen evidence or recall a witness for further examination, even after evidence is closed, because "there is no specific provision in the Code enabling the parties to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross-examination." The inherent power is then "the only recourse," used sparingly, on terms, and without protracting the trial.
In short, Section 151 can bridge a genuine gap, but the applicant must show a genuine gap and good faith. "Further elaboration on left-out points" was not one.
What to use instead of Section 151
Before drafting an application under Section 151, check whether the Code already gives a remedy. If it does, use it.
| Your situation | Use this, not Section 151 | What the Code says |
|---|---|---|
| You are affected by a decree passed by a court exercising original jurisdiction | Appeal under Section 96 (a non-party affected by it may file with leave of the court, as My Palace explained) | Appeal lies from every decree passed by a court exercising original jurisdiction |
| You are aggrieved by a decree or order and want the court that passed it to review it | Review under Section 114 | Any person aggrieved by an appealable decree or order where no appeal was preferred, or by one from which no appeal is allowed, may apply for review to the court that passed it |
| A clerical or arithmetical mistake, or an accidental slip or omission, in a judgment, decree or order | Section 152 | Such mistakes "may at any time be corrected by the Court" on its own motion or on application |
| A deadline fixed by the court has passed | Section 148 (enlargement of time) | The court may enlarge the period, "not exceeding thirty days in total," even after it has expired |
| A High Court-level challenge to a decided case where no appeal lies | Revision under Section 115 | With the proviso that an order made in the course of a suit cannot be varied or reversed unless, had it gone the applicant's way, it would have finally disposed of the suit |
| Interim protection (injunction, receiver, attachment, security) | Section 94 and the specific Orders | Includes "such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient" |
| Fraud on a party | A separate suit may be directed (per Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres, quoted in My Palace) | The court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit to set aside a decree obtained by fraud |
Section 115 has State-specific versions in some States, such as Uttar Pradesh and Orissa, so check the version in force where your case is.
Section 151 and interlocutory applications
An application under Section 151 is usually an interlocutory application, numbered "I.A." in the pending case. Our guide What Is an Interlocutory Application? Meaning, Types, Examples explains how IAs work. A common drafting habit is to cite a specific Order and add "read with Section 151." That is fine, but the court will decide the application under the specific provision. For example, in Haramani Sahoo v. Lalita Nayak (12 October 2026) the plaintiff's amendment application was made under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151, and the Supreme Court decided it under Order 6 Rule 17. See our guide Amendment of Pleadings (Order 6 Rule 17): Supreme Court in 2026.
The criminal equivalent: Section 528 BNSS
For criminal matters, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 saves the inherent powers of the High Court "to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." Unlike Section 151 CPC, it is addressed to the High Court, not to all courts.
How to draft a Section 151 application
- Name the specific provision first. If one covers your problem, Section 151 is not available.
- Say why no other remedy fits. The court will ask. A line such as "the Code provides no procedure for X" is the heart of the application.
- Be candid about the facts. The Supreme Court listed bona fides as a precondition.
- Ask for a limited order. "Reopen evidence for the limited purpose of X" is easier to justify than a sweeping direction.
- Do not use it to reopen settled matters. The Court in My Palace said inherent powers cannot unsettle already decided issues.
- Support it with an affidavit where facts are asserted, as with other interlocutory applications.
Common myths
Myth: Section 151 lets a court do whatever justice requires. Reality: It is a gap-filler. It cannot be used where the Code gives a remedy, or to cut across the Code (My Palace; Ram Rati).
Myth: Adding "read with Section 151" strengthens any application. Reality: The court decides under the specific provision. Section 151 adds nothing if that provision applies.
Myth: A court can never recall its own order. Reality: The Supreme Court has recognised that a court can recall an order obtained by fraud on the court. It did not accept that Section 151 could be used for that where alternative remedies existed in My Palace.
Myth: Section 151 CPC applies in criminal cases. Reality: Section 151 is in the Code of Civil Procedure. Criminal inherent powers sit in Section 528 BNSS, for the High Court.
The law behind this
| Topic | Provision |
|---|---|
| Saving of inherent powers (civil) | Section 151 CPC |
| Supplemental proceedings, including other interlocutory orders | Section 94 CPC |
| Appeal from original decree | Section 96 CPC |
| Review | Section 114 CPC |
| Revision | Section 115 CPC |
| Enlargement of time | Section 148 CPC |
| Correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes | Section 152 CPC |
| Saving of inherent powers of the High Court (criminal) | Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC) |
Frequently asked questions
What does Section 151 CPC say? It says nothing in the Code limits or affects the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. It is a saving provision that recognises a power the court already has; it does not create new rights or remedies.
Can I file an application under Section 151 CPC for anything? No. The Supreme Court has held that Section 151 can be used only where the Code gives no remedy, and that it cannot override the Code or be used as an alternative to a suit, appeal, revision or review (My Palace v. B. Mahesh, 2022). Cite the specific provision first and use Section 151 only if none fits.
Can a civil court recall its own final decree under Section 151? Not where another remedy exists. In My Palace the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order recalling a final decree under Section 151, saying the outsiders had a right of appeal with leave. The Court did not doubt that a court can recall an order obtained by fraud on the court.
Can a court reopen evidence or recall a witness under Section 151? In appropriate cases, yes, because the Code has no specific provision for reopening evidence. The Supreme Court in Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (2016) accepted that Section 151 can be used to reopen evidence or recall a witness for further examination, but held that recalling a witness merely to fill omissions in evidence is not permitted.
What is the criminal equivalent of Section 151 CPC? Section 528 of the BNSS saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders needed to give effect to any order under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It applies to the High Court; Section 151 CPC applies to civil courts.
Is a Section 151 application an interlocutory application? Usually yes. It is an application in a pending case asking for an interim or procedural order, and courts number it as an I.A. If it is used to reopen something already decided, as in My Palace, courts look at it very closely.
This guide is general legal information for readers in India, not legal advice for your situation. Procedure and State amendments differ; confirm the position with a lawyer or the court's registry before you act.